<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Petitions dismissed for delay, laches &amp; not availing s.397 CrPC remedy. S.482 powers can&#039;t override specific provisions like s.397(2).</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=79124</link>
    <description>The petitions were dismissed due to delay, laches, and failure to avail the alternate efficacious remedy of revision petitions u/s 397 of CrPC. The inherent powers u/s 482 CrPC, though wide, are subject to self-restraint and should not subvert specific provisions like Section 397(2) CrPC. The petitioners let the proceedings continue and challenged maintainability only after the complainant&#039;s evidence stage, despite having an efficacious alternate remedy available earlier. Allowing such petitions after inordinate delay would defeat the purpose of limitation prescribed for revisions. Hence, no interference was warranted u/s 482 CrPC.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 05 Jul 2024 08:19:48 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 05 Jul 2024 08:19:48 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=758966" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Petitions dismissed for delay, laches &amp; not availing s.397 CrPC remedy. S.482 powers can&#039;t override specific provisions like s.397(2).</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=79124</link>
      <description>The petitions were dismissed due to delay, laches, and failure to avail the alternate efficacious remedy of revision petitions u/s 397 of CrPC. The inherent powers u/s 482 CrPC, though wide, are subject to self-restraint and should not subvert specific provisions like Section 397(2) CrPC. The petitioners let the proceedings continue and challenged maintainability only after the complainant&#039;s evidence stage, despite having an efficacious alternate remedy available earlier. Allowing such petitions after inordinate delay would defeat the purpose of limitation prescribed for revisions. Hence, no interference was warranted u/s 482 CrPC.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 05 Jul 2024 08:19:48 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=79124</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>